Posted - 01/25/2012 : 15:06:25 This is not the first time i've heard this, but there's a rumour of the Canucks having some serious interest in Steve Downie. I'd read about this a few months back and now i've heard it through a third party with ties to the family.

Still just a rumour, but i know he's the gritty yet skilled kind of player who the Canucks have covetted for some time. I have no idea who may go the other way, but i'd have to think that if Schneider is involved, that more than just Downie would be coming back this way? Not saying a handfull of first rounders or a S. Stamkos, but i think it'd take more than just Downie to pry Schneider away from here.

Thoughts?

ETA....I would hope that Cody Hodgson isn't involved in the deal. He's really looked pretty good in his limited roll here, all while putting up better rookie numbers than guys like the Sedins, Kelser, etc.

38 L A T E S T R E P L I E S (Newest First)

Guest8875

Posted - 02/01/2012 : 17:53:06

quote:Originally posted by ToXXiK1

Either way you look at it, Van needs to get some balls.

INDEED

ToXXiK1

Posted - 01/31/2012 : 07:36:06 Either way you look at it, Van needs to get some balls.

Guest8850

Posted - 01/30/2012 : 15:54:21

quote:Originally posted by Guest5744

the canucks lack a forward with a physical presence though thats what killed them against boston too many small skilled guys getting pushed around

That would totally help them, Maybe Bfuyglien! Lol, I don't think that would happen but having someone like him up front or moving someone from D up front might help. Although I doubt Van wants to use Chicago's Playbook...

slozo

Posted - 01/30/2012 : 10:29:56

quote:Originally posted by The Duke

Steve Downie would be a great addition to any team and every team could use nother great defenseman...BUT

From what i saw, the Canucks lost the cup because of 2 main reasons...

1. They couldn`t score....1.14 goals per game in the cup final just don`t cut it...M. St. Louis would be a major boost here..not Steve Downy

2. Their goaltending was below average...

Defense may have been a 3rd factor but i think the 2 facts listed above were the 2 main reasons they lost the series.

Point 1 is why I think a player like Downie - very gritty scoring forward - helps put Vancouver over the edge.

And yes guys, it was ME that said that . . . just have to read through the thread.

In the finals against a tough, physical team . . . all their scorers got pushed around, basically, and couldn't break through on the scoresheet for the most part. I get it that Thomas was great, but . . . it wasn't all him.

But really, to contradict myself a bit here if I may . . . sometimes it's just the luck of the draw on who you play in the final, and how well you match up. Against another team, maybe Vancouver will have to have tighter defence, or better goaltending - it's all unknown until you reach the finals.

But looking at Vancouver's stacked lineup, really the only two things I can see to "shore up" are having an elite scoring defenceman, and a gritty secondary scorer who can punish physically.

"Take off, eh?" - Bob and Doug

Alex116

Posted - 01/30/2012 : 10:01:02

quote:Originally posted by Guest2456

Don't forget Halak trade wich is comparable to Schneider situation!!! Halak was traded at 24...Schneider is 25.If you think Schneider is better now then Halak was at this time...don't forget that Halak made a major push in the playoffs the spring before

TO STL : HALAKTO MTL : ELLER, SCHULTZ

so I don't see how you can get Connoly and Downie straight up for schneider...I'm not sure Schneider's value is that high!!!!!

Excellent post and comparison, i hadn't thought about the Halak deal but it is in fact a very comparable situation. Good job.

I don't know a lot about Connoly but i know he's a pretty highly touted pick who was drafted top 5 (or around there)? He was also loaned to team Canada for the WJC's where he was one of only a few returning players. I think he and Downie might be a little steep and would possibly require another pick or prospect to be packaged with Schneider, if in fact the Canucks had serious interest in Connoly?

nuxfan

Posted - 01/30/2012 : 09:52:00

quote:Originally posted by Guest2456

Don't forget Halak trade wich is comparable to Schneider situation!!! Halak was traded at 24...Schneider is 25.If you think Schneider is better now then Halak was at this time...don't forget that Halak made a major push in the playoffs the spring before

TO STL : HALAKTO MTL : ELLER, SCHULTZ

so I don't see how you can get Connoly and Downie straight up for schneider...I'm not sure Schneider's value is that high!!!!!

I don't think that Downie+Connolly would come the other way in a trade for Schneider. However, Schneider is clearly worth more than Downie alone.

I agree, the Halak deal would be a good comparison for a Schneider deal, both are roughly the same age and at the same stages of their careers. If Halak fetched a highly touted first round draft pick prospect (Eller) and another reasonable prospect in return, I would think that Schneider for Downie straight up would be undervaluing Schneider.

Guest2456

Posted - 01/30/2012 : 09:13:40 Don't forget Halak trade wich is comparable to Schneider situation!!! Halak was traded at 24...Schneider is 25.If you think Schneider is better now then Halak was at this time...don't forget that Halak made a major push in the playoffs the spring before

TO STL : HALAKTO MTL : ELLER, SCHULTZ

so I don't see how you can get Connoly and Downie straight up for schneider...I'm not sure Schneider's value is that high!!!!!

nuxfan

Posted - 01/28/2012 : 15:39:52

quote:Originally posted by The Duke

Steve Downie would be a great addition to any team and every team could use nother great defenseman...BUT

From what i saw, the Canucks lost the cup because of 2 main reasons...

1. They couldn`t score....1.14 goals per game in the cup final just don`t cut it...M. St. Louis would be a major boost here..not Steve Downy

2. Their goaltending was below average...

Defense may have been a 3rd factor but i think the 2 facts listed above were the 2 main reasons they lost the series.

If you watched the rest of the year and playoffs, other than the BOS series, it would be evident that the Canucks usually have no problem scoring, and don't need help in that department. St Louis (or that type of player) should not be on MG's radar.

The Duke

Posted - 01/28/2012 : 12:40:41 Steve Downie would be a great addition to any team and every team could use nother great defenseman...BUT

From what i saw, the Canucks lost the cup because of 2 main reasons...

1. They couldn`t score....1.14 goals per game in the cup final just don`t cut it...M. St. Louis would be a major boost here..not Steve Downy

2. Their goaltending was below average...

Defense may have been a 3rd factor but i think the 2 facts listed above were the 2 main reasons they lost the series.

Alex116

Posted - 01/27/2012 : 15:11:26

quote:Originally posted by Guest7116

rumours have it Suter will not sign with Nashville next season so his name is being tossed around. Although he may arguably be a stud, could be a major aquisition for anyones back end not only for now but the future. Also with his contract ending, you figure they will want to get what they can for him now, rather then keeping him and getting nothing.

This was discussed at length today on the radio with a few guys who were at all star weekend in Ottawa. Can't recall who, but a couple guys ("experts") said that with Nashville in the position they are, it's unlikely they'll let him go. If they were struggling, or do in the near future, then maybe, but (and i quote) "eventually you have to go for it and not continue to sell for the future. The fans deserve this".

Be an interesting one to follow though!

Guest7116

Posted - 01/27/2012 : 14:57:25 rumours have it Suter will not sign with Nashville next season so his name is being tossed around. Although he may arguably be a stud, could be a major aquisition for anyones back end not only for now but the future. Also with his contract ending, you figure they will want to get what they can for him now, rather then keeping him and getting nothing.

Alex116

Posted - 01/27/2012 : 14:32:50 Ryan, Beans, nuxfan, etc...

My mistake, i totally missed Rob Blake. When he was aquired, it was late in the season and when i looked at the Col roster, i failed to notice him as he was far down the list of scorers. I would argue HE was the stud, not Bourque, but either way, they did have one.

I disagree still with the Pens. They obviously had a talented enough crop of fwds to not need a stud dman but if Gonchar was a stud dman at that point, then you must consider a guy like Mike Green one too? If that's what you call a stud dman, we disagree then. I'm looking at guys like Neidermayer, Pronger, Lidstrom, Chara, etc who put up points (maybe not the most for dmen, but still a decent number) but are absolute shut down guys!

nuxfan, as for Boyle, an "emerging star" is not, imo, a stud. That's not saying he didn't become one. But imo, he's no different that where Edler was last year. Defense is hard to compare, but offense seems to be what a lot of people wanna see to be considered "stud". Here's Boyle's season ('04) vs Edler ('11).

Very similar #'s offensively including their playoff numbers as well which i didn't bother to list.Sydor, while still a nice addition to their team that year, was FAR from "stud" status, in fact, he imo, never would have qualified as a stud and was more of a complementary #2 guy.

Beans, totally respect your opinion, but what i don't get is, what if Lidstrom, Chara, Pronger, etc go down with injuries? Your theory is the depth can cover for them. My argument would be that the Vancouver depth is deeper or as deep as any and therefore should be able to cover for the lack of said stud regardless, no?

nuxfan

Posted - 01/27/2012 : 13:56:45

quote:Originally posted by Beans15

Stud minor is not a stud. I still hold true that the Canucks are missing that guy. They went out and paid large for Hamhuis when they may have gotten their hands on a more studly dude.

That is why I say depth is the issue. There are no studs in the system so the team has to have a guy just as good as the guy who gets injured or else they slide. There is no Chara, Lidstrom, Pronger, Neidermayer, Keith, Seabrook type player that can swallow up even more minutes than normal and totally kill it on the ice.

Stats and numbers aside, who is the guy the Canucks call on in a pinch from the back end?? If you can't name one name, there is no stud.

I'm pretty sure I just spent 4 paragraphs saying that indeed, the Canucks do not have a stud defenseman - I am not questioning that, nor trying to claim that stud minor == stud. I don't think that not having one big defenseman has hurt them terribly, and they have shown they can have success with a group makeup - in fact, every team that they beat on the road to the cup last year had defensive corps that were built around one (or two) stud defensemen.

The question is - will they decide that they need one and make the (likely deep) changes that it would take to get one, or do they continue down the road of several minor studs going forward? While the rewards of getting a Weber or a Suter at the deadline are substantial, the risks to your overall team (who do you have to give up, and how disruptive is that) can also be substantial.

ryan93

Posted - 01/27/2012 : 13:37:25 While I agree there are some recent examples of teams going all the way without that "stud" defensemen (Carolina Hurricanes in 2006 comes to mind), can't say I really agree with a couple of your examples. Especially the Colorado Avalanche, who had an incredible blueline at the time lead by stars Rob Blake, Ray Bourque & Adam Foote. Yes Bourque was older, but he was still very good both offensively (60 point range) & defensively. And Blake was in his prime & definitely a "stud" at the time, and was a monster in the playoffs with 19 points in 23 games.

Beans15

Posted - 01/27/2012 : 13:09:20 Stud minor is not a stud. I still hold true that the Canucks are missing that guy. They went out and paid large for Hamhuis when they may have gotten their hands on a more studly dude.

That is why I say depth is the issue. There are no studs in the system so the team has to have a guy just as good as the guy who gets injured or else they slide. There is no Chara, Lidstrom, Pronger, Neidermayer, Keith, Seabrook type player that can swallow up even more minutes than normal and totally kill it on the ice.

Stats and numbers aside, who is the guy the Canucks call on in a pinch from the back end?? If you can't name one name, there is no stud.

nuxfan

Posted - 01/27/2012 : 11:54:32

quote:Originally posted by Alex116Here's where my research left me....

Penguins 2009Kris Letang - 2nd year, 33 pts & -7 on the year. Didn't really begin to show signs of his capabilities till 2 seasons later (last year)Sergei Gonchar - played only 25 games before playoffs where he contributed nicely on offense

Neither of these guys, at the time, would i consider that "stud" dman you speak of.

Tampa Bay 2004Dan Boyle? 39pts and a +23. Not a bad offensive dman, but is he really the kind of guy who can carry a team when they've got a few injuries?

Colorado 2001Bourque? Added for the cup run but ss good as he was, and i don't wanna imply he was simply "along for the ride", he certainly wasn't the stud he once was, nor was he eating up the minutes he used to. Adam Foote? Defensively he was still pretty good at that time.

Alex - I have to disagree with you on these:

- PIT - Gonchar was the stud. He didn't play with PIT long, but PIT picked him up because he was the stud they needed.

- TB - yep, Dan Boyle was an emerging star at the time. However, the other presence they had was Sydor, who was a huge stabalizer as I recall.

- COL - Bourque for sure, stud of studs back then. But they also had Rob Blake on the backend for that run. Holy combo batman!

nuxfan

Posted - 01/27/2012 : 11:51:13

quote:Originally posted by Beans15Who is the Canucks stud defenseman?? I get that Edler scores a pile of points but based on his play to this point, he is not that guy to carry the team when needed. Neither is Bieksa or Hamhuis. All very good hockey players and all quality on any team. But they are not that stud, go to guy that other Cup winner have.

The Canucks do not have a stud defenseman, rather they have tried to build a group with several "stud minor" defensemen - Edler is the leader of that group (and IMO will emerge into a stud defenseman in the NHL one day, but he is not there now), along with Hamhuis and Bieksa as well above average shut down defensemen. However, as you say, they lack that true number-one-on-any-team guy.

That approach has not landed the ultimate success yet, but in fairness, they came within a game of winning it last year. I have liked the approach in the past, but Beans, perhaps you are correct that they need that guy to push them over the edge. The question comes down to a) who, and b) at what price.

The who is pretty easy - NSH has Suter and Weber, and either would be available for the right price as it looks like NSH will not keep both next year. I don't know if VAN and NSH could do a deal given that they're conference competitors and its possible that they'll meet each other in the playoffs, but those are the best options currently available.

The "at what price" is the sticking point - either of those options would be a steep cost to the Canucks, and I don't know if Gillis would be willing to give up key parts of his current team to make that trade. Besides draft picks and prospects, one would have to think that Hodgson would be going the other way as well as someone like Raymond or Hansen off the current roster, and maybe a current defenseman. Losing Hodgson and Hansen cuts a deep hole in an otherwise very good top-9.

Truthfully, I don't know what MG might be thinking - unlike Burke, he doesn't talk much about what he's thinking about to the press, so we'll see. It is tricky to make the changes that you think you need without upsetting an otherwise very good team - the wrong adjustment could be more harm than help.

Alex116

Posted - 01/27/2012 : 11:37:26 Beans.....Interesting point, but i don't agree really. Now you've made me do some research. It will be interesting now as it could come down to what you consider a "stud" dman. This may lead to needing a new thread even as this will prob get WAY off topic!

Here's where my research left me....

Penguins 2009Kris Letang - 2nd year, 33 pts & -7 on the year. Didn't really begin to show signs of his capabilities till 2 seasons later (last year)Sergei Gonchar - played only 25 games before playoffs where he contributed nicely on offense

Neither of these guys, at the time, would i consider that "stud" dman you speak of.

Tampa Bay 2004Dan Boyle? 39pts and a +23. Not a bad offensive dman, but is he really the kind of guy who can carry a team when they've got a few injuries?

Colorado 2001Bourque? Added for the cup run but ss good as he was, and i don't wanna imply he was simply "along for the ride", he certainly wasn't the stud he once was, nor was he eating up the minutes he used to. Adam Foote? Defensively he was still pretty good at that time.

That only going back 11 or so years. Now, maybe you consider those guys studs, personaly, i don't, at least not at those times in their careers. I'm not saying Hamhuis or Edler or Bieksa, etc are in the tier 1 of dmen, but if you looked back over those cup winners rosters, i'd bet you'd have a tough time finding many with a more balanced (deep) d than the Canucks had last year. I can think of Chi's from '10 and maybe a couple Det D's which would be up there, but if they were deeper, it couldn't be by much.

I fully agree, having a stud d man is nice, but there are very few Chara's and Lidstroms around, who can play above avg at BOTH ends of the ice!!! Certainly the Tampa team with Dan Boyle could be compared to the Canucks wouldn't you agree? Ehrhoff had more pts last year than Boyle did that year and a similar +/-. Boyle never was known as a top defensive dman. The difference there was that the Canucks had guys like Bieksa, Hamhuis and Edler who were certainly better than Boyle's supporting cast of Kubina, Lukowich, Sarich, Sydor, etc.

Guest5744

Posted - 01/27/2012 : 11:34:59 the canucks lack a forward with a physical presence though thats what killed them against boston too many small skilled guys getting pushed around

Beans15

Posted - 01/27/2012 : 10:55:42 I understand that all teams get injured. However, I think that the Canucks defensive group does not have a star. I think they have a very balanced and above average group of skaters on the back end but no star. That is the issue. That is where depth becomes an issue. If you have a star and depth at the position then you have a double edged sword. If the star goes down you have depth to gt by. If another player goes down you have a star to carry the load.

The Canucks don't have a star. They don't have a stud defensemen that can carry the load when needed. If you go back literally to 1980 (I bet you can even go earlier than that) the only team to win the Cup without who was considered an elite defensemen at the time was Carolina. Ever other team who won the Cup had at least one stud defensemen in their group.

Who is the Canucks stud defenseman?? I get that Edler scores a pile of points but based on his play to this point, he is not that guy to carry the team when needed. Neither is Bieksa or Hamhuis. All very good hockey players and all quality on any team. But they are not that stud, go to guy that other Cup winner have.

Alex116

Posted - 01/27/2012 : 10:28:55 Without retracing the entire thread, i don't know who said Downie would "put the Canucks over the top", but i'm pretty sure it wasn't me. I def think the Canucks could use a guy in the mold of a Steve Downie, but it doesn't suddenly make them THE Stanley Cup favorite by any means! Would he help, sure.

I know we've thrown this around before (you and i and others), but how much depth can a team really expect to have??? From what i recall, Hamhuis was out with a serious enough injury to keep him out of the biggest series of his life. Ehrhoff played through a bad shoulder injury, bad enough that his shot was rendered useless and he was almost a liability in the end. Edler had two broken fingers. Not the harshest injury, but it certainly couldn't help his play? So, that's 3 of the top 4 or 5 dmen either out or playing through injury. Now, my point isn't to rehash the Stanley Cup loss for the Canucks, but in reality, i want to know who you think would have won, if the Canucks D wasn't so badly hurt, and in turn, the Bruins had Chara watching from the press box, Seidenberg playing with one arm and Boychuk playing with broken fingers?

What i'm trying to get at, is injuries happen and you can only be so deep in talent to be able to cover for these. Hamhuis being out was one thing, but what sort of depth would you need to have a guy like Ehrhoff or Edler sit with the injuries they had? Would your 8th dman be better than either of those guys playing the way they were? If so, he wouldn't be an 8th dman, he'd be playing regularly somewhere, no?

I still think they need a little more grit in the lineup, but grit that can play hockey. I'm not saying they need a knuckle draggin neanderthal, but they need a guy like Downie, Chris Neil, Zenon Konopka (not as big a liability as many think as he's great on faceoffs), Milan Lucic (wishing), etc. Just my thoughts/opinion of course.

Beans15

Posted - 01/27/2012 : 07:54:54 Personally, I don't see how Downie puts Vancouver over the top of anything. It's not like they don't have that sandpaper kind of player already in their line up. Vancouver doesn't really need anything. The only issue I see Vancouver having is depth at defense. It was their downfall last season and I think it will be their issue again this year. Losing Ehrhoff in the off season did not help their back end at all.

Vancouver needs to stay healthy and the defense position, get the goaltending they expect from their 2 very capable players at that position, and have their super-duper stars play well in the playoffs. That's it. They do that and they likely win.

No trade will give Vancouver what they need. I don't think Downie would hurt them but I wouldn't give up much of anything to pick him up. They don't need him.

slozo

Posted - 01/27/2012 : 06:22:44 Downie is just the kind of gritty and skilled player that Vancouver needs to put them over the top . . . but at what price indeed?

I bet you anything Vancouver doesn't touch their goalie situation, however - I just can't see a smart GM doing that. You have a wealth of experience and talent with Luongo, and you have a goalie who looks just as capable if he falters in Schneider . . . why would you disturb that situation if unnecessary?

So no, I don't think this trade will happen. Because most definitely, TB would be looking for a goalie . . . and I don't see Vancouver giving up Schneider OR Luongo RIGHT NOW. In the off season? Yeah, I can see Luongo getting traded then if TB wants him . . . but other than that, I don't see it.

"Take off, eh?" - Bob and Doug

nuxfan

Posted - 01/26/2012 : 21:49:02

quote:Originally posted by The Duke

When a team is close to a stanley cup like the Canucks are...sometimes you have to give up a player you wanna hang on to, but is keeping this player worth possibly losing a shot at the cup ??...with this potential trade.

Watching Luongo play in last seasons playoffs...Is he even good enough to go all the way ?

Letting Sch. go may be a huge mistake for the Canucks.

If Van. is in serious trade talks with Tampa, and want a serious impact player to put them over the top.......they should be focusing on NOW..and that player would be instrumental for them in a cup run......M. St. Louis...

He is getting older on a team where he probally will not win a cup in the near future....but....he is exactly what The Canucks need right now at this point in time.

This guy is sooooooo good, he is a highly skilled, hard nosed player who never gives up. Of course Tampa would want youth in return, but you gotta make those final couple of moves to go all the way.

Vancouver would probally have to include some cap to Tampa...maybe a player on the final year of his contract.

Again, I don't think the Canucks are in the market for a small-but-highly-skilled forward. Especially one that turns 37 next year, with a +35 contract, with a cap hit of 5.65M until he's 40. Too many other pieces would have to move to properly accommodate the addition of St Louis, it would be disruptive to a team that, from what I can tell, doesn't need too much disruption.

Steve Downie is the type of player that VAN should be pursuing right now - one that can play 2nd or 3rd line, can score and be disruptive (sometimes in the same shift), and comes with some size, and does not have a big paycheque so they don't have to move much to get him. They have plenty of scoring forwards (both big and small), a good defensive group, and a great goaltending tandem. They simply don't need a big name forward right now.

As for trading Schneider vs Luongo - I don't know which one will go, but its nearly certain that next year only one will be left in Vancouver. Schneider will be due a large raise this summer, and they cannot afford both under the cap.

Alex116

Posted - 01/26/2012 : 20:10:40 Duke.....

I know he hasn't won a cup, but to wonder if Luongo "can go all the way" is kinda odd to me. Again, i know he lost game 7, but he made it as far as you can go, game 7 of the cup final! It's one thing that still irk's me about people's views on this guy. As you prob know, i'm not his biggest fan, but i respect his skill and wonder what people would think if he had won? I still don't think he'd get much more respect and most would claim the Canucks won in spite of him. He got that same treatment during and after the Olympic gold medal.

I do agree that if they can keep Schneider and Luongo for another cup run, they're better off. BUT, if someone goes wild and offers something they can't refuse, i guess they'll have to go into the playoffs hoping that Luongo can not only stay healthy, but play his butt off too!

As for St. Louis, i don't see them wanting or needing him at all. If i recall correctly, the two most common reasons given for the Canucks losing the finals last year, were injuries (mostly Canucks fans) and lack of toughness (everyone else). While 8 goals in 7 games in the SCF aren't often enough to win a cup, lack of scoring was not the norm thoughout the playoffs, AND, if their PP was clicking at even half the rate it did all year, they likely win that series. I'll stop there as i don't want this thread to become all about the finals last year!

In all, i'm okay with them going after a short term "rental" type guy, but i'd hope they get some long term help in whatever deal Schneider is involved in, if he is in fact moved!

The Duke

Posted - 01/26/2012 : 18:48:20 When a team is close to a stanley cup like the Canucks are...sometimes you have to give up a player you wanna hang on to, but is keeping this player worth possibly losing a shot at the cup ??...with this potential trade.

Watching Luongo play in last seasons playoffs...Is he even good enough to go all the way ?

Letting Sch. go may be a huge mistake for the Canucks.

If Van. is in serious trade talks with Tampa, and want a serious impact player to put them over the top.......they should be focusing on NOW..and that player would be instrumental for them in a cup run......M. St. Louis...

He is getting older on a team where he probally will not win a cup in the near future....but....he is exactly what The Canucks need right now at this point in time.

This guy is sooooooo good, he is a highly skilled, hard nosed player who never gives up. Of course Tampa would want youth in return, but you gotta make those final couple of moves to go all the way.

Vancouver would probally have to include some cap to Tampa...maybe a player on the final year of his contract.

Guest8850

Posted - 01/26/2012 : 13:51:06 Dealing away Schnieder would probaly be one of the most huge mistakes Van could make. With Luongo only being a best Goalie in the season and a choke artist in playoffs/olympics. (Ya, I said olympics). Why give up the future of between your posts especially when he's not even proven and will likely not get a good return unless some team is just that Goalie hungry. However if Luongo had Downie in front of him maybe.... ..no wait he still choked with team canada in front of him. Maybe they should just trade Luongo for a a dozen good fans. Steve Downie going to Van though would make me jealous and I might actually even start to like Van a little..

mandree888

Posted - 01/26/2012 : 12:21:18 i am sorry i did not mean to imply that he was but i can see how it was misunderstood. All i meant was that IF he WAS on the block it would not be because of bad play. it would have been due the legnth of robertos contract and the fact that he MAY want to be an actuall number 1 on a team.

Guest5744

Posted - 01/26/2012 : 12:05:06 ya they should try keeping both, at least for one more cup run if luongo falters they have the evidence and history to pull the plug on him before he sinks the ship.

nuxfan

Posted - 01/26/2012 : 10:53:52

quote:Originally posted by Guest5744

you're not getting both downie and connolly for schnieder forget it... where do you read these rumours on a canuck fan website?? if schnieder is the be all end all why is he on the trading block at all?

I didn't say the rumour was accurate, I just said it was a rumour. I don't hold much faith in it either, but I would think it is much more in line with Schneider's value than Downie straight up.

mandree888 - Schneider is not actually "on the block", Gillis has said repeatedly that he has no intention of trading Schneider before the summer, and its certainly possible that the Canucks will actually try to resign him and keep him. VAN is quite happy having one of the best goaltending tandem's in the NHL going into this year's post season, there is no financial reason to trade him, and his value doesn't go down once the summer comes. So why move him?

But as with any player, if the right deal came along, Schneider would be dealt.

mandree888

Posted - 01/26/2012 : 10:49:07 he is on the block due to a couple reasones. 1. Luongo has an insanly large contact that no ther team will want to comit to.and. Shnieder wants to be a number one guy. with his stats i can see why. those are imo the biggest reasons why he is on the block

Guest5744

Posted - 01/26/2012 : 09:35:12 you're not getting both downie and connolly for schnieder forget it... where do you read these rumours on a canuck fan website?? if schnieder is the be all end all why is he on the trading block at all?

nuxfan

Posted - 01/26/2012 : 09:20:58

quote:Originally posted by Guest5744

schnieder is good on the canucks... is he good on a team that isn't tops in the league in defense and offense? teams aren't gonna throw the kitchen sink at vancouver to get schnieder i'd be happy with a skilled defensive player like downie with toughness and hitting ability.

There are probably 10 teams in the NHL that would be willing to throw the kitchen sink at VAN for Schneider. I don't think its biased to think that Schniedier might be one of the most sought after RFA's this coming offseason.

Anyone that has watched Schneider play will know that he displays consistent and good positional play in the net, and is very calm under pressure, in stark contrast to Luongo's emotional play. Both Luongo and Schneider benefit from playing in VAN - however, consider that Schneiders personal numbers since the beginning of 2010 are actually better than Luongo's, despite the fact that he faces more shots per game and gets less goal support per game than Luongo. When Schneider wins, it is often the 2-1 or 3-2 games, many in OT, where your goalie is an integral part of keeping you in the game. The game vs BOS a few weeks ago is a classic example of a typical "Schneider game". At this point in time, VAN looks certain to get rid of one of their goalies before next year, and I'd be happy with either choice.

No, its safe to say that Schneider for Downie straight up is not going to happen. I searched around for rumours yesterday, and saw one posted that had Schneider going to TB for Downie and prospect Brett Connolly. Now that would be something to consider...

Alex116

Posted - 01/26/2012 : 08:45:01

quote:Originally posted by Guest5744

schnieder is good on the canucks... is he good on a team that isn't tops in the league in defense and offense? teams aren't gonna throw the kitchen sink at vancouver to get schnieder i'd be happy with a skilled defensive player like downie with toughness and hitting ability.

Are you saying you'd be happy taking Downie for Schneider straight up? If so, i'm not gonna blast you for it by any means, but i seriously think Schneider is worth more than just Downie and i believe there will be better offers out there. He's done all he can to prove he's a capable #1 including demonstrating patience with the organization's way of bringing him along with minimal starts. Let's not forget, he's not some 19 year old rookie!

Personally, i think MG will get more for him than just Downie or a similar player. I really think that MG is after Downie, but is trying to pry him away from TB with an offer more along the lines of Mason Raymond / Ballard or Raymond and a pick. That just may not be enough.

Guest5744

Posted - 01/26/2012 : 07:46:54 schnieder is good on the canucks... is he good on a team that isn't tops in the league in defense and offense? teams aren't gonna throw the kitchen sink at vancouver to get schnieder i'd be happy with a skilled defensive player like downie with toughness and hitting ability.

nuxfan

Posted - 01/25/2012 : 20:17:56

quote:Originally posted by Alex116

Who knows really, Schneider and Hodgson may not even be part of an offer? Maybe Raymond and a couple picks?

It's also quite possible having heard this rumour months ago, that they've been trying to work out a deal? Maybe the Lightning are trying to pry one of either Schneider or Hodgson (or both) away and the Nux are being stubborn and not wanting to part with one or both??? Again, i'm just speculating.

If either of Schneider or Hodgson is going to TB, then more than Downie is coming back the other way (I sincerely hope). I like Downie as a potential player in VAN, he brings a lot of grit and hard nosed playing that the Canucks need (although has been known to cross the line), but lets face it - either one of Hodgson or Schneider would be an absolutely coveted pickup by any team, easily worthy of more than just Downie.

I would not be surprised if it was something like Raymond going the other way - or, hope of hopes, Ballard. If Raymond and/or Ballard going, I think it would indicate more moves in the works.

This is the first I'm hearing of it though, time will tell.

Alex116

Posted - 01/25/2012 : 16:23:20 Who knows really, Schneider and Hodgson may not even be part of an offer? Maybe Raymond and a couple picks?

It's also quite possible having heard this rumour months ago, that they've been trying to work out a deal? Maybe the Lightning are trying to pry one of either Schneider or Hodgson (or both) away and the Nux are being stubborn and not wanting to part with one or both??? Again, i'm just speculating.

Guest0978

Posted - 01/25/2012 : 15:09:42 More than downie for sure. The nuxs would love having Steve downie, but maybe throw in a few picks or another dman then maybe.